m^:^^^-^ — 



ANTI-SLAYERY AGITATION 



IN THE CHURCH 



nsroT -A-TTTHomsBr). 




SPEECH 



REV. A. C. DICKER SON, 

OF BOWLING GREEN, KT., 



F. 



4*^Qi ^^® General Assembly, May 29tli, 1857. 



PHILADELPHIA: 

KINa & BAIRD, PRINTERS, No. 007 SANSOM 8T. 

18 57. 





aass 1£^^ ^ 

Book J J vr^ 



ANTI-SLAVEEY AGITATION 

IN THE CHURCH 



SPEECH 



EEY. A. C. piCKEESON 

;0F BOWLING GEEEN, KT., 

In the General Assembly, May 29tli, 1857. 



PHILADELPHIA: 

KING & BAIRD, PRINTERS, No. G07 SANSOM ST. 

18 5 7. 



,■ REV. MR. DICKERSOK'S SPEECH 



jm THE GENEEAL ASSEMBLT, MAY 29TH, 1S57. 

Moderator : — We have reached a point 
in these discussions, "when, it seems to me, 
we should pause and carefully review the 
ground we have travelled ; and re-examine 
the principles on which we have proceeded. 
The circumstances, all seem to indicate an 
approximation of the '' end." I am, indeed, 
aware, that amid the precipitancy of revolu- 
tionary movements, men are little disposed to 
consider " first principles." Especially is it 
distasteful to be stopped to examine the va- 
lidity of our proceedings, when on the very 
point of gaining the end for which they were 
instituted. Yet as the bearings of what we 
now do, are likely to affect, very deeply, for 
weal or woe, a cause we all love, and wish 
above all things, to guard from injury ; and 
as the very bonds of ecclesiastical brother- 
hood may be found sundered, amid the re- 
sults of our action, with all the consequences 
of " schism " in the body, it surely is desira- 
ble and important, to the last degree, that 
we should be well assured that in seeking our 
ends, however good in themselves, we have 
incorporated in our work no unsovmd mate- 



rial — adopted no principles of questionable 
propriety. Sir, our views are limited. Our 
powers are feeble. Yet the consequences of 
a single act are often momentous, and tlie 
immediate correction of an error, impractica- 
ble. We shall all be placed, in a short time, 
amid circumstances favorable to a full and 
correct apprehension of what we here do, and 
where it will be desirable, inexpressibly so, to 
find we had committed no mistake. With an 
appropriate reference to our last account^ let 
us proceed to the work of investigation. 

What sir, is the state of the matter to be 
discussed ? Those who originated and have 
driven on this agitation, profess to regard the 
'' system of American slavery (as a political 
institution,) an essentially unrighteous sys- 
tem — the great iniquity of the age — a viola- 
tion of the most essential rights of man :" — 
that members of the Christian church, hold- 
ing slaves under this system, are to some ex- 
tent and in some way, particeps criminis, in 
this great wrong ; that members of the 
Presbyterian church, who hold slaves, in- 
volve, in some way and to some extent, the 
entire body in the moral responsibilities of 
that wrong : — and that the General Assem- 
bly, as the highest Judicatory of the church, 
is the proper arena for discussion, and the legi- 
timate tribunal for the proper action, to re- 
move the evil. True, the agitators, in these 



reform measures, have never accurately de- 
fined the thing complained of, nor definitely 
settled the mode or extent of the church's 
responsibility in the premises ; nor marked 
out precisely the remedy. Yet the animus 
of the movement is plain enough. The end 
is the separation of all slaveholding from our 
denomination. The means, like the instru- 
mentalities in most revolutionary movements, 
shape themselves according to the exigencies 
of the case. At first, free discussion was 
the means. This failing to meet the growing 
zeal of reformers, remonstrance and reproof 
were brought to its aid. These seeming to 
be equally unavailing, disciplinay'y poiver 
was inquired for, and, through the report of 
an able committee, found. And now process 
is directly proposed. 

My general position, Moderator, is. That 
the subject of slavery — it being a political 
institution — lies without the province of ec- 
clesiastical supervision : — that the rights and 
immunities of membership, in the Presby- 
terian church, in no way and to no degree^ 
depend "upon the opinions or practice of in- 
dividuals, in relation to slaveholding : — and 
that all agitation of this subject, in our 
General Assemblies is illegitimate to their 
proper functions : — and that this whole sub- 
ject should, therefore, be totally ignored. 

In support of this view, I shall now pro- 
1* 



ceed to examine the subject : — 1st. In its re- 
lations to our constitution. 2(1. In reference 
to the teachings of the Bible. And 8d, in 
the light of the results, we have already 
reached. 

1st. the Constitution of our Church — its 
Relations to the Slavery Agitation, 

The end of the abolition movement is the 
separation of slaveholding from the church, 
on the ground that it is complicity with a 
moral wrong. The whole bearing of the 
agitation is then first to impair the good 
standing of slaveholding members, and se- 
cond, to expel them, if the evil can be reme- 
died by no milder measures. Now sir, to cor- 
rectly apprehend the whole subject, we are 
led to enquire into the nature of our church 
constitution — its relations to the Bible — the 
'proper tenure of church membership — the 
mode in which, and principles on which such 
ecclesiastical compacts are formed, and the 
functions of the General Assembly. 

We have, sir, a written Constitution, com- 
prising our doctrines, with their explication 
and application, as rules of life, in the larger 
and shorter Catechisms, our form of Govern- 
ment, and rules of Discipline. This book 
contains what we, as Presbyterians, believe 
the Bible to teach on these several topics. 
It is not the " rule of faith and practice" to 
us, as individual Christians. The Bible is 



that rule. But it is the aggregate of our 
individual belief, as to what the Bible 
teaches. ^ It is our expressed interpretation 
of the Bible as to the doctrines it teaches, 
and the form of ecclesiastical government 
and the principles of Discipline it inculcates. 
It is not indeed to supercede the Bible, or to 
be contemplated as in any degree above and 
beyond the Bible in point of authority ; but 
is a summary of the Bible, as we understand 
it. All its authority rests in this, that it is, 
what we, as Presbyterians, hold the Scrip- 
tures to teach. Revert, sir, for a moment to 
the principles on which such ecclesiastical 
compacts are formed. 

This book, in the preliminary principles, 
on which it confessedly rests, expressly re- 
cognizes the right of every individual to go 
directly, for himself, to the sacred Scrip- 
tures, for the doctrines he is to believe, and 
the^ principles of government and discipline 
he is to adopt. But Christians cannot fill 
their high mission, by separate and isolated 
action. How then is the desired combination 
to be effected ? — either one man must think 
and determine for all, or those whose indivi- 
dual and independent examinations liar- 
monize, must associate on the basis of that 
harmony. The former we all ignore, as the 
essence of despotism and at war with all just 
grounds of individual accountability. But 



8 

how is the latter to be effected? The results 
of free individual investigation must be com- 
2Kired ; and their agreement made the la%i% 
of a Gom'pact» 

Thus the Presbyterian church was formed. 
Its original members found, on comparing 
notes, that they had reached the same re- 
sults, in their inquiries into the sacred Scrip- 
tures, as to doctrines to be believed, and the 
government and discipline to be adopted. 
They agreed to live together in ecclesiastical 
brotherhood, on this common interpretation 
of the Bible teaching. This common inter- 
pretation they wrote in a Book, and solemn- 
ly pledged themselves to abide by it ; and to 
require all their successors both as members 
and officers of the church, to pledge them- 
selves likewise as a condition of admittance. 
But remembering the infirmities of our na- 
ture and the limited range of our powers, and 
the consequent possibility that subsequent in- 
quiries might require different views of the 
Bible to be adopted, and a consequent modi- 
fication of this book to be made ; they incor- 
porated a provision for such an emergency. 
This was exceedingly important. *' Union 
is strength," was an axiom. From the un- 
licensed liberty of investigation, different 
discordant views were liable, at any time, to 
arise amid whose conflictions, " unity " would 
be sacrificed. At the same time conscience 



was not to be strained, nor liberty adjusted 
to a " procrustian bed." To meet both ne- 
cessities in a happy and practical adjustment, 
it was incorporated, as an essential element, 
in the system, that when any individual 
should think he had discovered an error to 
be corrected, or a new doctrine, to be intro- 
duced, a memorial to that elFect should be en- 
tertained by the Assembly and sent down to 
the Presbyteries, for their consideration ; and 
if approved by a majority and in a given way 
attested, it should be incorporated accord- 
ingly. 

This was manifestly a wise and just ar- 
rangement. Every individual has here the 
right to be heard and to have his views, 
when differing from the Constitution, fairly 
considered, as to their scriptural authority ; 
while, at the same time, the general body is 
saved from all dangerous and hurtful obtru- 
sion upon its harmony. If the individual 
cannot gain the convictions of the Body to 
Ms views, after reasonable opportunity, he 
must either adhere, holding his peculiarities 
in abeyance in deference to the general 
good; or if too vitally important, in his 
opinion, to be thus restrained ; then by the 
terms of the compact, he must leave, and 
find a congenial field for their employment 
elsewhere : Now, sir, in view of these ac- 
knowledged principles, let it be observed, 



10 

that while each individual Christian has the 
right, and is in duty bound, to go directly to 
the Bible for the doctrines he is to believe, 
and the ecclesiastical government and disci- 
pline he is to adopt; and for these is respon- 
sible alone to the Lord of his conscience; 
yet as a Presbyterian^ he is under solemn 
and binding vows to this Constitution. He 
becomes a Presbyterian on the ground that 
his interpretation of the Bible harmonises 
with that of that church ; and in order to 
enjoy the advantages of union, he sought 
and obtained membership there. 

Let it be also observed, that by the theory 
of the Presbyterian Constitution, the Pres- 
byteries are the bodies authorized to alter the 
Constitution. All propositions for adding to, 
or taking from, or changing that ecclesiasti- 
cal social compact, in any way or to any ex- 
tent, must be submitted to them ; and be sus- 
tained by a majority of them, before they 
can be the law of the church. This is a vi- 
tal point. No opinions of any individual 
or bodies of individual Presbyterians — no 
resolutions of Synods or General Assemblies, 
can have any force as constitutional princi- 
ples. 

Let it be further observed, sir, that the 
tenure of the rights of membership in the 
Presbyterian church, is its Constitution, and 
that alone. We admit individuals to mem- 



11 

bership, upon their profession of faith in 
Christ and obedience to His laws. We ad- 
mit them, as Presbyterians, upon their adop- 
tion of our constitution, as containing the 
correct interpretation of God's word, which 
is the only rule of faith and practice. When 
they enquire for the terms of admission, we 
present them our Constitution. Here and 
here only are they to look for the conditio7is 
on which they are to be admitted ; and for 
the charter of their rights and immunities 
when admitted. Here is the " social com- 
pact," ecclesiastical — the magna charta of 
the rights and liberties of the Presbyterian 
commonwealth. The doctrines he is to be- 
lieve are here, and only here, recorded. The 
church government to which he subjects him- 
self, and the system of discipline to which he 
promises submission, are here laid down. In 
the judicial decisions of the higher judicato- 
ries, he is to look for the decisions of doubt- 
ful or disputed points — and such decisions 
are the authoritative exponents of the Consti- 
tution. But the opinions and resolves of the 
higher judicatories not judicial, are no part 
of the Constitution — constitute no part of 
the ground of admission to membership, nor 
any test of character or standing. The 
higher judicatories have no authority to add 
any thing to the Constitution, nor to take 
any thing from it, nor to make any neio tests 



12 

of Christian character or lay down any oiew 
basis of membership in the church. No 
doctrine, beyond those, declared in the Con- 
fession of Faith, can be made a doctrine of 
the Presbyterian church by any action of a 
General Assembly. Nor can any doctrine 
of the Confession, or claimed to be of it, be 
authoritatively declared or decided upon by 
a Synod or Assembly, except when brought 
under its judicial notice, by the proper 
action of the lower judicatories. 

One thing more, sir. No measures, aimed 
to affect the rights and immunities of member- 
ship in the Presbyterian Church, which, when 
directly made, would be confessedly wrong ; 
may even be justly employed, to accomplish 
the same end, indirectly. The contract be- 
tween the church and her newly admitted 
members is a bona fide one. The terms of 
association are plain, and are distinctly de- 
clared. And when the connexion is thus 
legally formed, no man may honestly seek to 
injuriously affect it, by efforts to foist into 
the compact new features or mitigations of 
old ones. As the individual member, who 
should ignore an acknowledged doctrine, or 
seek to evade the legitimate operation of our 
government and discipline, would be justly 
considered as violating his obligations to the 
church, solemnly assumed v;hen he entered 
it ; so the church, through her legitimate tribu- 



13 

nals, having invested in the member admit- 
ted, the immunities of membership, should 
she attempt to alter the terms, or modify 
them so as injuriously to affect the enjoyment 
of them by the person thus admitted, would 
be rightfully charged with a breach of faith. 
Much more so, would be the conduct of her 
General Assemblies, when by the declaration 
of doctrines, and the establishment of tests 
of good standing, not in the constitution, 
nor contemplated when the connexion was 
formed, they should seek to surround sections 
of her membership with circumstances which 
would morally compel a course of conduct, 
not at all contemplated, when they united 
with the church ; and which, in the circum- 
stances, would seriously compromise their 
consciences and their happiness ; or which 
would compel their withdrawal from the body 
altogether. Such indirect exscision were a 
palpable violation of all the constitutional 
guarantees of our church rights. 

Now, sir, in view of this preliminary ex- 
amination of the Constitution of the Church; 
its nature ; the principles on which, and mode 
in which it was formed ; and its relations to 
the Bible and to membership in the Church ; 
the tenure of ecclesiastical rights, and mea- 
sure of the qualifications for their investment 
and enjoyment — we are prepared to advance 
a step, and to inquire how this abolition 
2 



14 

movement and its professed ends, quadrate 
with this great charter of our rights. 

1. It "will be conceded, that nowhere, in 
the Constitution of the Church, is slave-hold- 
ing expressly recognized as a subject of gov- 
ernmental cognizance, by any of our Church 
judicatories ! Among our doctrines, nowhere 
is slave-holding mentioned as a heresy, or 
anti-slavery as a doctrine. Nowhere, in our 
authorized explications of the doctrines of 
the Church, made at such full length in the 
Catechisms, (especially the larger,) is the 
holding of slaves recognized as a crime, in 
express terms. Among the vast number and. 
forms of evil, expressly recognized as calling 
for the cognizance of the Church Session 
and the Presbyteries, (the only bodies hav- 
ing original jurisdiction, under the Constitu- 
tion, of disciplinary processes,) not once is 
slave-holding named ! The relative duties 
of masters and slaves are recognized, and, 
by implication, the relation itself rather 
sustained than condemned. It is passing 
strange, that if this were the evil of evils — 
the abomination of the age — the deep and 
dreadful gangrene of the body, threatening 
to consume its vitals — the founders of the 
Church should not have expressly brought it 
under the ban of the Constitution. 

And here, sir, let me remind my brethren 
of the Assembly, that in well regulated gov- 



15 

ernments, the absence of express authority, 
in the exercise of delegated powers, is always 
regarded with suspicion, and is looked upon 
as a demand for caution. In well balanced 
systems of judicial process, the plea of want 
of poiver is held to demand, justly and im- 
periously, the most careful and thorough 
revieiv ! If in an ecclesiastical Constitution 
there is conceded to be no direct and express 
recognition of slave-holding as a proper sub- 
ject of cognizance of any of its judicatories, 
the strong presumption is, the framers of 
the instrument never intended it to be ! 
But, sir, this presumption is rendered mor- 
ally certain^ when, in the 

2d place, we refer to the circumstances 
under which our Constitution ivas formed ! 

Next to the language itself, there is no 
more satisfactory rule of getting at the in- 
tentions of the framers of an organic law, 
for either Church or State, than the circum- 
stances in which they were known to be 
placed. At the time our Constitution was 
originally formed, it is a fact, that slave- 
holding, by church members, did extensively 
obtain. Slavery, as a civil institution, ex- 
isted in all the States, with perhaps a single 
exception. When, subsequently, our Con- 
stitution was remodelled and again adopted 
as a whole, slave-holding was still common 
among both ministers and members. That 



16 

the framers of the Constitution did not intend 
to make an instrument that would necessarily 
cut themselves off from the Church which it 
was to govern, is a self-evident proposition ! 
That they did do so, however, if slavery is, 
by the Constitution, a crime and a legitimate 
subject of governmental cognizance, needs 
no proof. Therefore we are driven, irresisti- 
bly, to the conclusion, that they intended no 
such thing ! 

It is nugatory to urge here, that " oppres- 
sion" (which is condemned) is synonymous 
with slaveholding ; and therefore the latter 
may be lawfully dealt with as a crime. The 
framers of the Constitution surely under- 
stood the terms they employed — at least in 
application to the tilings they had under 
consideration. The consideration suggested 
above, is proof, positive as demonstration, 
that they did not consider the tldng — slave- 
holding — as synonymous with the Uiing — 
oppression — which they condemn ! 

Equally nugatory is it here to allege, that 
in the Bible, slave-holding and oppression 
are one and the same thing ! For, admitting, 
for argument's sake, it were so, yet we are 
seeking, in these inquiries, what the Preshj- 
terian Church finds in the Bible, as authori- 
tatively declared in her Constitution; and 
not what individuals, in the exercise of their 
original freedom of inquiry, may have found 



11 

there. Slave-holding and oppression, then, 
are not the same, in the view of the framers 
of our Constitution : the one is a proper sub- 
ject of disciplinary process — the other is not ! 
The bearing of all this, sir, will be very 
perceptible, in an illustration of its practical 
operation. Thirty-four years ago, believing 
myself prepared, by the grace of God, I 
knocked at the door of a church, in your 
connection, for admittance to membership. 
I was met at the threshold with the presen- 
tation of your Confession of Faith^ and told 
that it contained the teiiiis of admission. I 
was informed that these were the doctrines 
I was expected to believe, and the form of 
government and system of discipline the 
Presbyterian Church believed the Bible to 
teach, and to which I must promise submis- 
sion ; that these were the only conditions — 
these the only tests of qualification for 
membership. I adopted them — entered the 
Church, and by the compact, understood the 
Church to guarantee my rights and immuni- 
ties of membership, so long as I fulfilled my 
obligations to her Constitution ! No intima- 
tion was made to me, that my membership 
might be challenged, or its immunities affect- 
ed by any thing not here provided for ; and 
far less by any thing in me, or in my then 
and known condition, not now covered by 
the Constitution. I was then implicated in 
2* 



18 

slave-holding. Multitudes of other persons 
"were received there, and all around me, into 
the Church, in the same " condemnation," if 
it 'were unlawful. The Sessions that received 
us were recognized bj their Presbyteries, 
and these again by the Synods, and the 
Synods by the General Assembly ! And in 
the Constitution — the basis of the compact 
formed with the Session — no, mention was 
made of slave-holding, as a crime demanding 
censure. Now, sir, on what conceivable 
ground — just and right — can that circum- 
stance be now dragged up, and foisted into 
the terms of membership, and made a test 
of Christian character, and brought to affect 
my good standing in the Church ? 

Twenty-five years ago, I applied to one of 
your Presbyteries for admission to the minis- 
try of your Church — the Presbytery of Cin- 
cinnati, then headed by the venerable Dr. 
J. L. Wilson — a body of men no one could 
suspect of a lax regard to the Constitution. 
I was then admitted as a candidate. I was 
subsequently, by another Presbytery, having 
regular cognizance of my trials and studies, 
licensed and ordained. Here, as before, I 
was presented with the Constitution^ as con- 
taining the Church's interpretation of the 
Word of God, the doctrines I was to believe 
and teach, and the governmental system I 
was to adopt. I did adopt them, and on 



19 

these terms entered her ministry ! It was 
no part of the compact that my oflScial im- 
munities and rights were to depend on any 
thing not in the Book. I adopted the " Con- 
fession of Eaith," and promised obedience to 
its laws, and claimed as my right, that as 
long as I taught its doctrines and conformed 
to its regulations, my ministerial standing 
and usefulness, and my personal happiness, 
as relates to my church connections, were 
guaranteed ! Not a word of slave-holding 
being unlawful was uttered, and none found 
in the Book ! Yet now, after the prime of 
life spent in her service, amid no ordinary 
share of trials, my fair standing is assailed, 
in memorials sent here, by entire Synods, 
and actual disciplinary processes are pro- 
posed, looking to my expulsion ; and all on 
ground which existed at the time of my ad- 
mission, and was known to exist by the Pres- 
bytery that ordained me. At the same time, 
the action of the Presbytery was sustained 
by the Synod, and its action by the Assem- 
bly ! That ground of accusation, moreover, 
is nowhere recognized in the Constitution, 
which was the acknowledged basis of my 
admission ! Who, sir — who, I ask with em- 
phasis ! — who would give a fig for constitu- 
tional guarantees, when thus trifled with and 
recklessly set aside ! And in the light of 
such procedure, where, sir, were the solemn 



20 

oaths of fidelity to the Constitution, each 
delegate in this Assembly took upon his 
ordination? ! 

Moderator, I shall, doubtless, be told 
that the General Assembly is the highest 
judicatory of the Presbyterian church — that 
it has borne its testimony against slavery 
at intervals, from its origin — and that it has 
powers that cover the case, and that submis- 
sion to its decrees, is among our " ordination 
vows" and conditions of admission to the 
church. 

The General Assembly is indeed the high- 
est judicatory of the church, but it is a body 
of limited powers. It is a delegated body, 
and can only act within the limits prescribed 
by the constitution. It has no power to de- 
clare articles of faith for the church. The 
church has established its own " doctrines" 
and declared its own terms of communion, 
and tests of Christian character. Within the 
sphere of its legitimate action, the Assembly 
is to be respected and its action is authorita- 
tive and binding — but out of that sphere it is 
revolutionary ! 

Action of Previous Assemblies. 

The Assemblies of the church have indeed 
acted on the subject of slavery — that is, a 
feio of them have ! but sir, what is the pur- 



21 

port of tlieir action ? Has any Assembly ever 
said that to hold a slave, under the laws of 
the land, was a crime, demanding discipline ? 
Has not every Assembly that ever acted on 
the subject, distinctly declined taking any 
such ground — nay, expressly or by necessary 
implication, admitted that slaveholding might 
exist in the church, without sin ? Nay, did 
they not admit, by unavoidable implication, 
that tlie slaveholding in our church, was not 
sinful, in the fact, that discipline was never 
ordered ? Brethren, sir, claim too much from 
the action of former Assemblies ! Illegiti- 
mate and wrong as often was that action, it 
never went, to the extent sometimes claimed. 
The action of past Assemblies, had refer- 
ence, to a large extent, to the African slave 
trade, and to the abuses of the institution in 
the neglect of its relative duties — to the evils 
incident to the system, as it has operated at 
large. Yet, sir, I readily admit that past 
Assemblies have employed strong language — 
have explicitly condemned the " system of 
slavery " existing in the United States as a 
civil institution, — have used language in re- 
ference to its connexions with the church, 
which was calculated to bring into question 
the moral and Christian character of our peo- 
ple, implicated in it. And while distinctly 
declining to declare it essentially and neces- 
sarily sinful, by general terms and careful 



22 

refinements, they have sought to render it 
odious, and have, to some extent, visited 
upon our slaveholding members, by moral 
force, the disabilities of membership, that 
would have resulted from direct discipline, 
which, as the consummation of the "pro- 
gress" sought and made from year to year, 
it is now proposed directly to endeavor. 

All this, it is contended, is sustained by 
the clause in the constitution which gives the 
Assembly the power " of reproving, warning 
or bearing testimony against error in doc- 
trine or immorality in practice, in any church, 
Presbytery or Synod." Slavery, it is as- 
sumed, is a heresy in doctrine and an immo- 
rality in practice ; and that it exists among 
the ministers and members of the church 
located within the jurisdiction of some of our 
churches. Presbyteries and Synods. Accord- 
ingly, the Assembly may reprove or bear 
testimony against it. Now sir, in all due re- 
spect to brothers, I must dissent from the 
construction thus put upon the language of 
the constitution. 

The Assembly may indeed bear testimony 
against error in doctrine and immorality in 
practice, but may it determine what is error 
and what is immorality ? Our civil courts 
may administer punishment against murder, 
or arson, or treason, but may they determine 
what is murder, or arson, or treason ? An- 



23 

other tribunal is clothed with this power. 
The things are specifically different. Under 
the clause quoted, may our Assemblies pro- 
ceed to determine what is doctrine for the 
church ? May we enlarge, alter, or modify 
the Confession of Faith, or the Form of 
Government and system of discipline, the 
church has adopted for herself? Certainly 
not. But what else is it, when we essay to 
determine " errors " in doctrine or " immo- 
ralities in practice?" Error is. the negation 
of truth, and immorality, that of duty. 
Neither can be predicated but upon truth 
previously " determined " and duty or obli- 
gation previously recognized. Now all this 
the Presbyterian church has done for herself. 
She has gone to the Bible, the rule of faith 
and practice, and thence deduced her doc- 
trines and their resulting duties ; and these 
she has written down at large in her confes- 
sion of faith, and these are the doctrines and 
duties, that become the subject of the official 
attention of her judicatories. Accordingly, 
the " errors " in doctrine and immoralities in 
practice, against which the Assembly may 
bear testimony, are errors which are the ne- 
gation of such doctrines as the constitution 
embraces, as doctrines which the church has 
drawn from the Bible ; and of such duties as 
the church has gathered from the same source 
— not the DETERMINATION, for the church, 



u 

WHAT ARE ERRORS OR IMMORALITIES ! Tllis, 

sir, is a vital distinction. 

SlaveJiolding not Co7isidered an Immorality, 

Accordingly, before the agitation of slave- 
ry by the Assembly, and disciplinary mea- 
sures against slaveholding can be sustained 
by this clause of the constitution, it must be 
shown that the church has settled, for her- 
self, that these are matters cognizable to her 
tribunals — that slaveholding is an "immo- 
rality " in practice — that the immunities and 
rights of membership, under the constitu- 
tion in any way depend upon our personal 
opinions or action in relation to slaveholding. 
In all the Confession of Faith, express men- 
tion of slaveholding as a sin, it will be con- 
ceded, is no where to be found. By plain 
implication, the contrary is there. In our au- 
thorative explication of the 4th and the 10th 
commandments, the relation of master and 
servant is explicitly recognized as an exist- 
ing fact, and its mutual duties are specified. 
The entire and uniform practice of the church 
is to the same point. In all its history, not 
a case can be adduced, as is supposed, when 
in admitting a member into the church, or a 
minister to our connexion, the individual was 
ever given to understand, that the rights and 
immunities of his membership, were to de- 



25 

pend upon his ignoring the civil institution 
of slavery ; or that holding a slave would be 
regarded as an '^ immorality " demanding the 
"reproof" of the Assembly, In no one in- 
stance, it is believed, in the entire history of 
the Presbyterian church, has an individual 
member been disciplined for holding slaves ; 
or has there been a judicial decision by any 
of its judicatories, that such relation was an 
immorality. May the Assembly then, in the 
exercise of its authority, to bear testimony 
against " errors in doctrine and immoralities 
in practice," assume that slaveholding is an 
immorality, in the absence of all express con- 
stitutional authority, and in the face of the 
uniform and entire practice of the church, 
and all judicial decisions upon the point. If 
so, sir, our Assembly is an irresponsible 
Body, of unlimited power, and all the gua- 
rantees of the constitution, are idle wind! 
All the precious immunities of membership 
are held at the caprice of those who may ac- 
cidentally compose a General Assembly. — 
The exscinding measures of 1837 and '38, 
need no broader ground of support or better 
defence. 

Is it urged, in reply, that an " oifence " is 
defined by our Book of Discipline, to be *'any 
thing in the principles or practice of a church 
member which is contrary to the word of 
God ; or which, if not, in its own nature sin- 
3 



26 

ful, may tempt others to sin." And that 
" nothing ought to be considered an offence, 
or admitted as matter of accusation, which 
cannot be proved to be such by Scripture, or 
the practice of the church founded on Scrip- 
ture ; that this language contemplates a re- 
ference to the Scripture^ when we are exa- 
mining the character of things charged to be 
"immoral ;" and that accordingly, if the As- 
sembly thinks that slaveholding is an " of- 
fence," or is sinful, /rom the Scriptures, then 
it is bound to " reprove, warn, or bear testi- 
mony against it." 

NoTv^, sir, has the brother that urges this 
view, overlooked the consequences of the po- 
sition, and the principle it involves ? Does 
he fail to see, that his interpretation, invests 
the Assembly with the eiitire power of the 
cliurch ; and totally supercedes the constitu- 
tion ? Who is to judge whether conduct in a 
given case is contrary to the word of God, 
and thus assume the character of an '• of- 
fence ?" If the General Assembly has the 
power, then we all hold our rights of mem- 
bership, upon the interpretation of the Bible 
by the General Assembly, and not upon the 
constitution ! And as each General Assem- 
bly expires with the term of its sittings, no 
man can know what the tenures of his mem- 
bership are except as each Assembly may de- 
termine! for the plea urged, assumes that 



2t 

the Assembly, is empowered to determine 
"whether slaveholding is an immorality ; and 
on the basis of that determination to *^ re- 
prove and bear testimony against it." But 
the church, in her extended explanation of 
the doctrines she draws from the Bible, and 
of the immoralities which result from viola- 
ting the duties of religion, no where puts 
slaveholding in that category. The assump- 
tion is therefore unfounded. The right to 
determine the point is not in the Assembly, 
but in the church. If the Assembly may 
take the entire field of human conduct, into 
examination, and of its own right, determine 
for Presbyterians, what is immorality, and on 
the ground of that determination, proceed to 
" reprove " and thus punish, where were the 
guarantees of the constitution, of a fair 
trial ; and that according to principles of 
discipline previously settled, for applying 
" that system of laws which Christ has ap- 
pointed in His church?" 

T7ie Eighth Oommandment. 

Is it urged, sir, that the answer to the 
question, " What is forbidden in the eighth 
commandment?" (which commandment is a 
part of our Constitution, as is also the ex- 
planation of its import, given in the Cate- 
chism,) after repeating a number of imrtiou- 



28 

lars^ adds — " and all other unjust or sinful 
ways of taking or withholding from our 
neighbor what belongs to him, or of enrich- 
ing ourselves" — that a discriminating power 
is here given, by necessary' implication, to 
bring given things under the range of gen- 
eral principles, and subject them to ecclesi- 
astical cognizance and censure, though not 
specifically named in the Constitution as per- 
taining to that category. 

I answer, 1st. That in the part of the 
Constitution referred to, we have what the 
Presbyterian Church understands the Bible 
to intend by the eighth commandment of the 
decalogue. If there is any thing predicable 
of human conduct, to which the princij^le of 
that command implies, besides what is speci- 
fiedj it is to be put into the same category. 
Now the point is, when it is assumed that 
this or that is of that class, who is to deter- 
mine the fact ? The things specified in the 
answer referred to, were determined to be- 
long to the category of things forbidden by 
that commandment, by the Church for her- 
self, and not by the Assembly. If any other 
thing is to be added, it must be by the same 
authority. There must be a falling back 
upon that fulness of power to interpret the 
Bible for the Presbyterian Church, which is 
in the Church itself, and not to that limited 
delegated power which is in the General 



29 

Assembly. If the Assembly has the power 
to determine what are to be " offences" cog- 
nizable to our system of discipline, beyond 
what the Constitution specifies, then again 
we have no constitutional guarantees at all, 
and our dearest rights and privileges are at 
the mercy of this temporary body. 

But I answer, 2d. That the intended ap- 
plication of this assumption only demon- 
strates its absurdity. Slave-holding is not 
specified among the things forbidden by the 
eighth commandment. No ; but then it is 
added, after a number of specifications, " and 
all other unjust and sinful ways of taking 
and withholding from our neighbor what be- 
longs to him." Liberty is withheld from the 
slave; this withholdment is of what '^he- 
longs to him ;" slave-holding is therefore a 
breach of the eighth commandment — it is 
^^ unjust and sinfuV Now, sir, I ask, 
whose province is it to dete^^mine that fact 
for the Presbyterian Church? Each indi- 
vidual may interpret the Bible for himself; 
but as Presbyterians, we have pledged our- 
selves to the principle of submission to the 
Church's interpretation. Yet here it is 
claimed that the Assembly may determine 
it — a temporary body, having limited and 
clearly defined powers, to be followed next 
year by a similar body, and of the same 
powers ! There were no determinate and 
3* 



30 

fixed results practicable, in the nature of the 
case ! Look at the facts. The founders of 
the Presbyterian Church were largely them- 
selves slave-holders. When the Constitution 
was remodeled and again adopted as a whole, 
a very large portion of the ministers, elders 
and members were slave-holders. When they 
adopted the Constitution, did they intend, 
by the clause under review, to give the lati- 
tude claimed ; and by the very Constitution 
adopted, fatally condemn themselves ? Such 
a supposition were an absurdity ! 

Again: All the Assemblies that have ever 
acted on slavery, have refused to take the 
ground assumed in the case before us ; for, 
let it be observed, if the objection to our 
construction of the Constitution, which we 
are now considering, has ayiy force at all, it 
is, that to hold a slave is sinful; and on that 
ground the Assembly may condemn it. As- 
semblies have pronounced '''tlte system of 
slavery in these United States" essentially 
unrighteous, and "slavery" to be a *'blot 
upon our holy religion." But when they 
approached the practical question, and would 
touch slave-holding by Presbyterians, they 
have fallen back, as if fatally touched by 
the segis of the Constitution ! If slave- 
holding is a breach of the eighth command- 
ment, then it is sinful and unjust, and like 
"fraud, theft and robbery," is to be disci- 



31 

plined! The conclusion is irresistible ! Why 
have our Assemblies exhibited to the world 
the mournful spectacle of grave ecclesiastical 
bodies, wavering, undecided, now advancing, 
now receding? At one time pronouncing 
" slavery" a blot upon religion ; at another, 
recognizing the practicability of its imparting 
no guilt; — pronouncing a whole political sys- 
tem '' essentially unrighteous," and yet mem- 
bers of the Church, practically operating 
under that system, not guilty ! Or if, in 
some undefined way, and to some undeter- 
mined extent, guilty, yet not to be disci- 
plined ! All this, sir, is proof clear as de- 
monstration, that the Qonstitution of the 
Church has ever been felt to be invaded, 
when this slavery agitation has been enter- 
tained by the Assembly ! With the nature 
of that compact, as the great guarantee of 
our Church immunities, as the fundamental 
law of the Presbyterian organization, never 
can be harmonized the power and preroga- 
tives here claimed for our General Assem- 
blies. And confusion of counsel, and " del- 
phic utterances." discreditable to our dignity, 
and prejudicial to our prosperity, must ever 
result from the attempt. 

Confusion of TJiought in Past Action, 

My remarks upon the relations of the sla- 
very agitation to the Constitution of the 



82 

Church, I will close Tvith two observations. 
The " unsteadiness" of bur action has re- 
sulted from confusion of thought on two 
vital points. We have, in the first instance, 
confounded, in our conceptions of power and 
prerogative, the General Assembly with the 
Church. The theory of our Constitution is, 
that " every Christian church, or union or 
association of churches, is entitled to declare 
the terms of admission to its communion, 
and the qualifications of its ministers and 
members, as well as the whole system of its 
internal government, which Christ hath ap- 
pointed"— to make its own Constitution or 
fundamental law. This the Preshyterian 
Church has done for herself. This, any and 
all Churches may of right do. They may 
go to the Bible and draw thence doctrines to 
be believed and government to be adopted, 
and the tests on which members are to be 
admitted, and ministers ordained, and disci- 
pline administered ! The General Assembly, 
however, is but a creature of the Church — a 
temporary body, of specific delegated powers, 
designed simply as an instrument for carry- 
ing out the system adopted by the Church, 
In the fulness of power, in the latter, the 
Bible is interpreted. In the restricted pre- 
rogatives of the former, that interpretation 
is to be carried out. These essential distinc- 
tions have been overlooked, or partially con- 



33 

founded. Hence Assemblies have been in- 
voked to legislate new bases of Church rights, 
and new tests of membership and Christian 
character — to assume the prerogatives of the 
Oluircli ! This great error produced the 
revolution of '37 and '38, and underlies this 
entire slavery agitation! "Why," says a 
brother on this floor, heralded also before- 
hand as one of its ablest constitutional law- 
yers — " the General Assembly can declare 
any thing in reference to doctrine, or immo- 
rality in practice" ! The memorials which 
abolition Presbyteries and Synods have for 
years been sending up, and the phraseology 
which abolition speakers and papers con- 
stantly employ, involves the same fundamen- 
tal error. 

I concede, indeed, that to a large extent, 
it is but what was to have been anticipated. 
We have now, and have long had mingled 
up ecclesiastically with us, an element seem- 
ingly incapable of assimilation to true Pres- 
byterianism ; whose early prejudices and 
habitudes of thought associate all idea of 
ecclesiastical power with that of the single 
church ! It is not at all strange that a man 
born and raised a Congregationalist, should 
constantly, in his conceptions of Church pre- 
rogative, invest the Assembly, or Synod, or 
Presbytery, with the looivers of the Qlmrcli, 
Whenever he acts ecclesiastically at all, he 



34 

feels the power of the Cliurcli is possessed 
in full ! And accordingly, whatever the 
Church may of right do, any judicatory of 
the Church may do ! The prevalency of the 
Congregational element may therefore natu- 
rally account for this mistake. The conclu- 
sion is strengthened by the fact that from 
such elements, extreraest views of slavery, 
and greatest urgency for action by the As- 
sembly, seem to proceed. That native trained 
Presbyterians should have committed so great 
an error, is more strange. 

Want of Discrimination— Private Judgment, 

In the second instance, we have not clearly 
discriminated between our privileges and 
rights, as individuals, and as a body of 
Christians, in relation to the Scriptures. 
Our Constitution is founded on the principle 
that God is "sole Lord of the conscience" — 
that conscience is "left free from the com- 
mandments of men" — that the " rights of 
private judgment, in all matters that re- 
spect religion, are universal and unaliena- 
ble." Accordingly, it is the right of every 
Christian man to go to God's Word for him- 
self, and under the highest responsibilities, 
he is to examine it for himself, and from it 
form his own " Confession of Faith." But 
when two or more Christians, who have done 



35 

this, compare notes and find such a harmony 
of results as lays a basis for union, they 
form a "particular Church," which Church 
has the "right to dictate the terms of ad- 
mission into its communion, the qualifications 
of its ministers and members, as well as the 
whole system of its internal government." 
When such a social compact is once formed, 
then its Constitution is to its members that 
Church's interpretation of the Bible ! And 
while an individual continues a member, and 
enjoys or claims its immunities, he must con- 
form to that compact. If his conscience is 
disturbed, and he cannot bring the body to 
his views, he must leave ! To continue and 
agitate, would be to violate the terms of ad- 
mission. In the slavery agitation this dis- 
tinction has been overlooked ! Men, in their 
eagerness to carry a point, have laid too 
heavy a stress upon their individual relations 
to the great work of interpreting the Bible, 
and too little upon their obligations of obe- 
dience to the Church I " The Saviour is the 
sole Lord of our conscience," it is urged ; 
" we are responsible to Him, and must give 
an account. His Word is truth, and must be 
preached. As Bis ministers, we must cry 
aloud and spare not. Slave-holding is a sin. 
The slave is chattelized into a beast of bur- 
den. We must agitate, until his rights are 
respected ! !" But, Moderator, with all this 



S6 

admitted, as Presbyterians^ owe we no obli- 
gations to our Churcli — to our own solemn 
vows to abide her constitutional judgments ? 
In ber Constitution is the '* system of doc- 
itrines" and "whole internal government," 
which she believes Christ taught. On the 
ground of our agreement in all this, and our 
promise to abide it, we were admitted to her 
communion ! If now we differ from her, 
honor and duty alike require us to retire, 
and not to disturb her .peace. 

The result, then. Moderator and brethren 
of the Assembly, is that, by the Constitution 
of our Church, this " slavery agitation" is 
unlawful, as tending to impinge the rights of 
your membership. I now proceed to inquire 
whether your Constitution, thus interpreted, 
is not sustained by the teachings of the 
Scriptures ? 

Slaveholding and the Bible. 

The teachings of the sacred Scriptures on 
the subject of slavery, might indeed be pro- 
fitably examined to the extent of a treatise. 
Their substance, however, is easily and short- 
ly reached. We need not detain the Assem- 
bly on this part of our work. 

The Bible, in both the Old and New Tes- 
taments, refers to slavery in its relations to 
civil society, or recognizes it as pertaining to 



37 

that category of social existence ; and in- 
volving, as an essential element, the idea of 
" property in man " — a right to control the 
services of the slave for the pecuniary ad- 
vantage of the owner, without the slaves's 
consent : and that slaveholding, did not 
prejudice the master's claims to be a holy 
man, or to the immunities of church mem- 
bership. If this be so, then it must be shown 
that a like civil relation now, must be con- 
nected with circumstances or characteristics 
which necessarily alter the case ; or this 
abolition agitation is as unscriptural as un- 
constitutional, inasmuch as the very gist of 
it is, that it tends to injure the good stand- 
ing in the church, of your slaveholding mem- 
bership. 

The Old Testament— Exodus 21 : 20, 21. 
" And if a man smite his servant or his maid 
with a rod, and he die under his hand, he 
shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding 
if he continue a day or two, he shall not be 
punished, for he is his money.'" Here the 
master, in the legal inquiry into the charac- 
ter of the killing of the slave, was entitled to 
have his pecuniary interest in the slave, 
taken into the account, as creating a natural 
presumption against the malice which would 
constitute murder. If the person killed was 
his "money," the natural conclusion would 
be that self-interest would check passion and 
4 



38 

curb malice, and that, therefore, the killing 
would naturally be presumed to have been 
unintentional. This single passage as dis- 
tinctly recognizes "property in man," as an 
element of the slavery which existed among 
the Jews, as volumes could possibly do. But 
the provision is a part of a code of civil re- 
gulations proclaimed by Moses for the gov- 
vernment of the Jewish state : ar^d pro- 
claimed by the immediate direction of Moses' 
Master, the Creator himself. If then there 
is in the nature of the thing, slavery, any 
essential unrighteousness, it here attaches to 
God himself. But we may examine further : 
In Levit. 25 : 44—46. " Both thy bond men 
and thy bond maids which thou shalt have, 
shall be of the heathen that are round about 
you; of them shall ye buy bond men and 
bond maids. Moreover, of the children of the 
strangers that do sojourn among you, of them 
shall ye buy, and of their families that are 
with you, which they begat in your land : And 
they shall be your i^ossession : And ye shall 
take them as an inheritance for your child- 
ren after you, to inherit them for a posses- 
sion ; — they shall be your bond men forever'' 
I will only observe further, that in the 4th 
and 10th commandments of the decalogue, 
the relation is referred to, as a thing likely to 
exist, and provision made for the moral and 
religious bearings of the institution. 



39 

I will quote no other passages. These are 
as decisive as language could make the case. 
A word in reference to the rule of interpre- 
tation and the application of these teachings 
to the case before us. The position has been 
taken on this floor, that the Bible on this 
subject, must first be consulted as to its gene- 
ral 2)rinciples of morality, and then by tliese^ 
the language of particular passages must be 
construed : that the neglect of this, is the 
most fruitful source of heresies ; and of their 
defence. Now, sir, I dissent from the posi- 
tion, in this relation. When the language 
fails to give the meaning clearly and deci- 
sively, we may construe, to a certain extent, 
by general principles, elsewhere made out. 
But the language, when clear and explicit, is 
our first and most satisfactory criterion of 
the author's meaning. The Scriptures were 
addressed to the common sense of mankind ; 
and when their language is clear and deci- 
sive to that common sense, it is the meaning 
intended. The fruitful source of heresies, is 
the first consulting our instincts and feelings, 
as to what ought to be meant, and then 
twisting the language of the passage to suit 
our theory. General principles, here claim- 
ed to control the language, are themselves 
but deductions drawn from the common sense 
interpretation of the language. 

Revert to the passages quoted. No con- 



40 

ceivable language could more distinctly con- 
vey the meaning, that of the servitude refer- 
ed to the "right of property " was the living 
element. The idea is not only expressed in 
the simplest, clearest manner, but is incor- 
porated with a class of ideas, and woven into 
a system of things which are left utterly 
meaningless, if that idea is taken out. It is 
contemplated as bearing upon the legal as- 
certainment of the animus, in homicides. 
It is made to enter into the system of legal 
transmission of property, and the laws of in- 
heritance. 

Let it be also observed, that at the time 
these laws were enacted, the Jews did not 
hold a single slave, so far as we can discover. 
Tliey were in the wilderness, not long from 
bondage themselves. The civil code now 
promulged by Moses, was in anticipation of 
their national enfranchisement in Canaan. — 
It was accordingly, not the restriction and 
limitation of an institution, then in exist- 
ence; but the divine authorization of one 
soon to arise. Nothing more nor less can be 
made of it. Many indeed, and salutary were 
the limitations and restrictions and guards, 
appointed to secure the relations from abuse. 
And if you say, the religious system cotem- 
poraneously adopted, tended to meliorate the 
condition of slaves, and ultimately remove 
the institution of slavery from society alto- 



41 

gether, I have no objection to the position ; 
I believe it was so. The ultimate results of 
that religion, were the elevation of all classes 
of men, to a fitness for a form of social or- 
der, in which all were fully prepared to par- 
ticipate — this was its tendency ! But all this 
only sustains both the fact and the ijropriety 
of the intervening order of things. Slave- 
holding then under the Old Testament, was 
of Divine authority, was a civil institution, 
only cognizable to ecclesiastical supervision, 
except as the duties of the parties were neg- 
lected ; and as under the Jewish theocracy, 
the civil and ecclesiastical administration 
were in the same individuals. 

The New Testament. 

In the New Testament, the severance of 
the civil and the ecclesiastical^ was at once 
and complete. The Saviour said, " render to 
Csesar the things that be Caesar's, and to 
God the things that be God's" : — the jurisdic- 
tions are separate and distinct. When even 
an illegal tax was exacted, that His business 
might receive no detriment from a confliction 
with the authorities of the state, he prompt- 
ly paid it. To the civil authority and the 
institutions of the state, he yielded, all his 
life, the deference and allegiance of a good 
citizen. Even when injustice mingled itself 



42 



in the proceedings of the state in reference 
to himself, if it pertained to his civil rela- 
tions he submitted. So did likewise his apos- 
tles and disciples. Among the arrangements 
of the state, in which they lived and acted, 
slavery^ it is conceded on all hands, did ex- 
ist, and to an extent and in offensive forms, 
not excelled in any age or country. Now 
how did they act in reference to this civil ar- 
rangement ? The question is answered most 
satisfactorily in their own language and con- 
duct. One thing is conceded — they preach- 
ed the Gospel, were successful, and founded 
churches, where slavery was, and had for cen- 
turies, been a law of the land. Such surely 
were the circumstances, when it was most 
natural, they should have taught and incor- 
porated " abolitionism " into the Christian 
organizations they founded. It was the com- 
mencement of things — they were establishing 
model churches. Into those churches they 
were receiving men and women of all classes 
in society — masters and slaves. Here, above 
all conceivable cases, was the very one, when, 
if that relation was "sinful," when, if any 
where, the church might assail the arrange- 
ments of the state, and make a man's rela- 
tions as a citizen, exactly tally with those he 
held to the church — when, in short, the 
church might, if ever, make a man's civil re- 
lation an object of ecclesiastical supervision. 



43 

What, sir, were the facts ? No where in all 
the ministry of Christ or of His apostles, was 
a master ever told he could not be a Chris- 
tian while holding his fellow man in bondage 
— that he must manumit his slaves before 
he could be received into the church — that 
it was a blot upon religion ! And yet, when 
in all the range of things conceivable, were 
there a more proper and befitting occasion? 

But, sir, let us revert to their language. 
They did not pass the subject over in silence. 
They spoke of it often, and very emphatical- 
ly. Eph. 6: 5, 6, and 9. ''Servants be 
obedient to them that are your masters ac- 
cording to the flesh, with fear and trembling, 
in singleness of your heart as unto Christ ; 
not with eye service as men pleasers, but as 
the servants of Christ, doing the will of God 
from the heart. And ye masters do the same 
things unto them, forbearing threatening." 
Col : 3 : 22. " Servants obey, in all things, 
your masters according to the flesh, not with 
eye service, as men-pleasers, but in single- 
ness of heart, fearing God." 1 Peter 2 : 18. 
" Servants be subject to your masters with 
all fear ; not only to the good and gentle, 
but to the froward." Titus 2 : 9, 10. " Ex- 
hort servants to be obedient unto their own 
masters, and to please them well in all things, 
not answering again, not purloining, but 
showing all good fidelity; that they may 



44 

adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour, in all 
things." 1 Tim. 6; 1 — 5. "Let as many 
servants as are under the yoke count their 
own masters worthy of all honor that the 
name of God be not blasphemed. And they 
that have believing masters, let them not 
despise them because they are brethren, but 
rather do them service, because they are 
faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit 
— these things teach and exhort." 

Now, sir, paraphrase these apostolic in- 
junctions. Note the circumstances under 
which, and the persons to whom they were 
addressed. These writers were Apostles of 
Christ. They "spake as they were moved 
by the Holy Ghost." They were now found- 
ing the first Christian organizations, such as 
were to be models to all future missionaries. 
They were gathering the material of their 
churches from communities whose civil or- 
ganizations embraced "slavery." Their con- 
verts were of both masters and slaves, as 
well as parents and children, husbands and 
wives, rulers and subjects. The relative du- 
ties of these several classes they pointed out 
and enforced. Passing from those of the 
other classes, they came to masters and slaves. 
The former, when entering the church, was 
told to be kind to his servants ; not to dis- 
tress and annoy them with needless ascerbity 
of language ; and to give them what, in the 



45 

relation, was just and equal. The latter 
they told not to run away, but to be obedient, 
humble, respectful, faithful — to count their 
masters worthy of all honor; to serve them 
willingly and in singleness of heart — even 
the perverse and cruel were to be patiently 
endured. They were not to "despise" them, 
even when Christian brethren with them- 
selves, or on that ground to claim immuni- 
ties from the obedience and deference due 
them. All this was to be done, " that God 
and His doctrine be not blasphemed" — that 
no charge be raised through the community 
to the detriment of the Gospel, as if it inter- 
fered with the order of civil society, and en- 
couraged servants to become disobedient and 
rebellious, and thus tended to confusion ! 

Moderator, may I not remind my brethren 
of the Assembly, that this is apostolic, di- 
vinely inspired teaching. The happy tenden- 
cies of such instructions are indeed plainly 
to be seen. But, sir, how infinitely remote 
from the superior wisdom of our times ! — 
Those who originated and have mainly pro- 
secuted this slavery agitation — and no sin- 
gle Assembly has ever "borne testimony" 
against this "immorality" — have openly 
countenanced and advised the running away 
of slaves, and even have thrown themselves 
in direct hostility to the laws of the land 
respecting the recovery of fugitives. Elders 



46 ♦ 

in our churches have boasted of their com- 
plicity with under-ground raih'oad schemes 
to aid slaves away from their masters. All 
manner of hard names and opprobrious epi- 
thets have been heaped upon masters. En- 
tire States have been insulted, and their in- 
stitutions "despised" and denounced, until 
" God and his doctrine" have been so blas- 
phemed that it has become almost impossible 
for us, who try to preach the Gospel to them, 
to gain their attention, except through our 
disconnection with you. Ministers and 
churches are extensively suspected of sinis- 
ter designs against the State. Statesmen, in 
our Legislative and Congressional Halls, be- 
fore the world, boldly charge Christianity 
with conspiring treason, and aiming to sub- 
jugate the State to the Church. There are 
large districts in the South where a Northern 
minister would be received with suspicion, 
and where ministers of known abolition sen- 
timents- and agitating tempers, would not be 
tolerated. Now, sir, I earnestly ask breth- 
ren to compare the teaching and conduct of 
the Apostles with abolition reformers; and 
mark the contrast ! Mark, sir, the graphic 
language in which the Apostle Paul propheti- 
cally portrays the characteristics of this 
" agitation," as well as the pointed terms in 
which he condemns the neglect of his injunc- 
tions — "If any man teach otherwise, and 



47 

consent not to wholesome words, even the 
words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the 
doctrine which is after godliness, he is proud, 
knowing nothing, but doting about questions, 
and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, 
strifes, railingSy evil-surmising s, perverse dis- 
putinss of men of corrupt minds and desti- 
tute of the truth, supposing that gain is god- 
liness: From such withdraw thyself." 1 Tim. 
6: 3 — 5. This, sir, was the ''testimony" of 
an inspired Apostle, " against the immorali- 
ty" of abolition agitation in his day— against 
the principle of ecclesiastical interference in 
the affairs of the State. It was then the 
doctrine of Christ, a doctrine " after godli- 
ness," that the Gospel claims no right to dis- 
turb the relation of master and slave, as an 
existing civil institution — that complicity with 
this civil institution created no prejudice 
against one's Christian character, and con- 
stituted no disability for church membership. 
Now, sir, is the metaphysical dogma of " in- 
trinsio right and wrong" — for whose protec- 
tion there seems to be a special invocation of 
our guardianship at present — to be assumed 
as the " doctrine of our Church ?" Be it so. 
Then the relation of master and slave, thus 
sustained by apostolic teaching, was either 
"intrinsically right or wrong,'' If it was 
intrinsically right, then the recognition of it 
by the Apostles was itself right. If it was 



48 

intrinsically wrong, then the Apostles were 
shamefully derelict in duty, in not wiping 
the "blot from religion" and the Church! 
And further, if there was no intrinsic wrong 
in Christians holding slaves under the " sys- 
tem of slavery" then obtaining in the State, 
there can be none in the present case, unless 
it can be shown that the circumstances which 
rendered it not improper to be a slaveholder 
then, were totally different from those that 
surround the case now. This will not, I pre- 
sume, be seriously attempted. 

Is it asked, sir, that after all thus urged, 
whether the religion of Christ, as developed 
in the Bible, especially in the New Testa- 
ment, is to be so interpreted as to afford us 
no hope of the relief of the slave from his 
bondage — as to countenance and sustain civil 
arrangements that involve the oppression of 
the feeble, and the perpetuation of a tyrannic 
rule of the poor ? I answer. No ! God for- 
bid ! The tendency of religion is to estab- 
lish in man's heart, a heart and life control- 
ling benevolence, that can only find its grati- 
fication in the diffusion of happiness. As it 
gains control, selfishness, depraved passion 
and appetite yield their influence, and man 
is elevated in all the elements of the highest 
civilization. In this civilizatiom, all the 
forms of social existence assume the highest 
style, and man approximates primeval happi- 



49 

Siess and rectitude. In the meantimej civil 
forms must be adapted to his condition. Any 
government is better than anarchy. Civil 
liberty, in the hands of the ignorant and de- 
graded, were like edged tools in the hands of 
children. In the regulation of civil forms, 
Christianity assumes no right of direct inter- 
ference. She takes man as he is, wherever 
found. She seeks to infuse the leaven of her 
influence into his heart, and thus to elevate 
and refine him, leaving his civil relations to 
take their desired changes, as the result of 
his christianization. Accordingly as the 
Gospel has gained foothold, the people have 
become at once enlightened and purified, 
and gradually advanced to higher degrees of 
civil liberty. The Constitution of the State 
has felt its soft and plastic touch. All 
changes in advance of the proper prepara- 
tion, would be real evils instead of blessings. 
Hence it is intrinsically right, that existing 
forms of civil society should not be changed, 
except as the result of the desired prepara- 
tion. Hence the Apostles never assumed to 
meddle with affairs of State. Hence mis- 
sionaries of the Gospel to heathen lands 
never begin by assailing the State, Such a 
course would be instant death to their hopes 
of success. They depend on the leavening 
influence of religion to effect the desired re- 
forms. Andj sir, I venture to say, that the 



50 

same well-tried policy were not inapplicable 
to ourselves, though we are enveloped in the 
blazing light of the nineteenth century ! 
Preach the Gospel, Confine yourself to the 
sphere confessedly legitimate to the Church. 
She will be as she has ever been, a " city set 
on a hill." You will reach at once the heart 
of the master and of the slave. The former 
you will mould to the image of Christ — his 
heart to the spirit of love. The latter you 
will elevate and purify, and Jit for the higher 
forms of civil freedom. And when so fitted, 
civil society tvill adapt itself to his capaci- 
ties. Already much has been accomplished. 
From the lowest degree of heathenish degra- 
dation, the negro race among us have reached 
a considerable degree of Christian civilization. 
They are, sir — (and I speak from the convic- 
tions of thirty years' careful observation) — 
they are now rising in all the elements of 
such a civilization, with a far greater rapidity 
than did ever any heathen people known to 
history ! Cease these hurtful and injudicious 
interferences with the State in reference to 
them. Return to the policy of the Apostles, 
Use all the mightily increased facilities for 
giving force to the Gospel, so characteristic 
of the age. Recognize the master's civil 
rights ; urge the slave Jo a quiet acquiescence 
in the necessities of his lot, and a diligent 
use of his facilities for improvement — then 



61 

your way to the heart of each is opened. You 
■will then be in the highway to the desired 
consummation. No, sir ; no good man could 
desire the perpetuation of slavery. No good 
man can desire the continuance of the facts 
that give existence to slavery, and on which 
its continuance depends. Eor the present 
these facts do exist — sLavery exists. And all 
such agitation of the subject as tends to 
bring the Church and the State into colli- 
sion, cause God and his doctrine to be blas- 
phemed. All such agitation as tends to 
bring discredit upon our Church membership 
who are slaveholders, and injure their church 
immunities, is as unscriptural as it is con- 
trary to our ecclesiastical Constitution ! 



THE RESULTS OF THE AGITATION. 

We shall now, sir, advance to a rapid re- 
view of the "results of this agitation," as 
hitherto carried on ; and seek in them, testi- 
mony as to its character. In the light of 
these, if we mistake not, we shall find abun- 
dant confirmation of the conclusions to which 
our examination of its relations to the Con- 
stitution and the Scriptures has already con- 
ducted us. 



52 



Results upon the Negro Racem 

Twenty years' agitation, with all its ex- 
penditure of thought and of pecuniary means, 
has failed utterly to solve the problem of 
their escape from bondage to a better condi- 
tion ! You have indeed rendered the race 
among us, both free and bond, restless and 
discontented ; — the free, with the very partial 
degree of elevation they reach, even in the 
free States ; the slave, with his bonds. The 
agitation has opened a faint glimpse into a 
higher sphere, as almost in reach of the 
freed, and thereby stimulated a keener de- 
sire for its attainment, only to be followed 
by a deeper despondency, as the facts, ren- 
dering its attainment impossible, show them- 
selves to be insuperable. It has enticed 
thousands of slaves to escape from their 
masters, with high hopes of a glorious achieve- 
ment, to be followed by despair and despera- 
tion. I hold it, sir, as incapable of success- 
ful challenge, that the negro race, in this 
country, in Canada, in the English West 
Indies, that have been freed, have been de- 
cidedly injured by the change. In the slave 
States, this agitation has crippled, if not 
extinguished all ideas of emancipation for 
the present — has originated a necessity for 
a more rigid police — has injuriously affected 



53 

the slave through the aggravation of the 
masters' passions and the excitement of his 
fears — has curtailed their liberties and privi- 
leges — has exposed them to ^summary and 
terrible measures, upon slight exposure to the 
charge of insurrectionary movements and 
purposes — has occasioned the enactment of 
severe laws, and created a jealousy of all 
measures looking to their instruction. Chris- 
tian owners have been thus crippled in the 
indulgence of kindness toward slaves, and in 
prosecuting schemes for their amelioration. 
And all this, in the face of an utter failure 
to devise any " better way." You rouse the 
master's conscience to his fearful responsi- 
bilities. He is a good man and a sensible. 
What is to be done ? It is an awful sin in 
the sight of God — a blot upon religion. 
Emancipate at once! His slave is ignorant, 
thriftless — has no habits essential to self- 
protection. Where shall he go ? What shall 
he do ? You say, rid yourself of the " foul 
sin," without regard to consequences ! His 
common sense and honesty both rebel. No. 
Show him what is to be done with the slave, 
when he is free ; where he is to go, and the 
guarantee of his amelioration. All this the 
slavery agitation of twenty years has utterly 
failed to do. Cease it, then, and return to 
the apostolic plan. 

5* 



64 



Results upon the Church, 

The slavery agitation has been the plough- 
share of division to almost all the denomina- 
tions of the country, having a Southern mem- 
bership — to all who have entertained it, as 
an adopted policy, excepting our own; and 
how long the exception here can be pleaded is 
extremely uncertain. With all the connected 
strife and bitterness of intestine conflict, it 
has utterly devoured the two largest denomi- 
nations in the country — has riven them into 
fragments, which, in bitterest strife, are 
descending to the gulf of mutual distrust. 
Upon our own Church, what has been its 
result ? After twenty years' earnest discus- 
sion, have our counsels been harmonized, our 
sentiments approached unity, and our bor- 
ders been filled with peace I Nay, we have 
heard but little else than the din of battle. 
Our Assemblies have been rendered arenas 
for annual conflicts, which have made us a 
spectacle to the world, and a butt of ridicule 
to the ungodly, while the sympathies, which 
were the bonds of union, have been gradu- 
ally eaten out by the spirit of discord. Our 
denominational action has been crippled ; our 
benevolent enterprises have been poisoned 
by its virus. The schemes of beneficence in 
which, with brethren of like faith in other 



55 

bodies, we were wont to co-operate, and in 
which we were wont to find the peculiarity 
of " our mission" — the Tract and Missionary 
Societies, (Domestic and Foreign,) have all 
been made to feel its withering touch. Sir, 
I boldly charge upon this agitation, more 
than all other causes, the responsibility of 
the failure of that new phase of modern 
Christianity — our co-operative enterprises of 
benevolence . 

It has disturbed our intercourse with kin- 
dred churches, which, in former times, was 
so delightful, and which had so much influ- 
ence upon the religious prosperity of a previ- 
ous generation. Those brethren and we once 
walked in Christian fellowship, and our sea- 
sons of mutual visitation were hailed with 
delight by all. We met, and talked, and 
prayed, on terms of Christian courtesy. 
But, sir, how is it now? I wish to use no 
hard words. I will not descend to the gross. 
Yet in all honesty I must say, that the terms 
on which it is now demanded that our inter- 
course (I mean that with our corresponding 
bodies) shall be based, contains the essence 
of ecclesiastical arrogance — terms that, if 
submitted to, would be the abandonment, on 
our part, of the last vestige of self-respect ! 

But, sir, a worse result still, if possible, 
is to be noticed. The agitation has tended 
largely to put us as a church, into the position 



56 

of ijoliticians ! A fierce political struggle 
over slavery has been progressing for years. 
It has become an active and potent element 
in the politics of the country. Politicians, 
with occasional and noble exceptions, are a 
godless brood, controlled by the seven prin- 
ciples, of the " five loaves and two fishes," — 
the " spirit of public plunder " — amid whose 
conflicts every thing " fair, and of good re- 
port " is readily sacrificed. Their breath, 
blown now cold and now hot, upon the church 
of Christ, is a moral sirocco to her life. Into 
these turbid waters the slavery agitation has 
plunged the church ! Her ministry it has 
placed upon the platform, and led to parti- 
cipate in the excitements and ape the perfor- 
mances of the political stump speaker. The 
abolition resolves of the Assembly are hailed 
by one party — cursed by the other. Politi- 
cians, like swarms of flies, flock about your 
sittings, buz stimulants into your ears, and 
by exciting huzzas and inflammatory para- 
graphs, urge you to measures which they 
can turn to account, in their partizan politics ; 
and thus, has this unfortunate agitation, been 
made to pander, through our ecclesiastical blun- 
dering, to political corruption. By one party 
we are cursed — by another praised ! Any 
church thus rendered a catspaw to politi- 
cians, has been shorn of its strength and its 
honor together. Why sir, I have all around 



57 

me sad complaints of this very evil. In one 
instance, part of a church excommunicating 
the rest for voting for certain candidates for 
the Presidency ! Ministers dismissed for 
preaching politics and for not preaching po- 
litics — churches, divided between the repub- 
lican and democratic parties ; and each 
threatening to break up the congregation, as 
the Assembly shall or shall not, " drive oflf the 
South" ! How heart-sickening, moderator ! 
And is this the once united, orderly and 
heavenly prospered church, eschewing the 
things of the world, as well as its " king- 
doms," which our fathers founded under God, 
and justly boasted of its severance from tlie 
State, and its disconnexion with the " en- 
tangling alliances " of politics ! Christ said 
" His kingdom was not of this world, else 
would (and therefore would not) his servants 
fight.'' When one invoked his interference 
in the settlement of a controversy with his 
brother about property, Christ let him know 
that His business, was not with secular mat- 
ters. But now his servants, grown more 
wise, are coveting the huzzas of the political 
crowd, and by petitions, thrusting their heads 
into our legislative and congressional halls, 
seeking to affect great and momentous politi- 
cal measures, to teach " our senators wis- 
dom," and even to instruct the learned func- 
tionaries of the supreme court of the nation, 



58 



in the science of our civil jurisprudence ! — 
Alas ! how are the mighty fallen ! What 
moral comet has come into collision with the 
world, with our church, and by the collision, 
has so changed its divine ijolarity 9 — The 
slavery agitation, sir ! ! 

Results uijon the Exhihition of the G-osj^el, 

Once more sir. The results of this agita- 
tion upon our exhibition of the Gospel, as a 
divine system for men's recovery, are worthy 
of our consideration. 

Christ and Him crucified, is the grand 
summary of the Gospel — the centre about 
which cluster all the truths of religion, and 
from which they derive their converting 
power. To this central idea every gospel 
sermon should in some way point, and on it 
depend for its power. The slavery agitation 
has occasioned a distorted presentation of the 
Gospel, by us. The mind of the preacher 
has been absorbed by a politico-religious 
idea. The great cardinal truths of the Gos- 
pel have been measurably overlooked, in 
seeking its full development. The negro's 
deliverance from bis civil bondage, has been 
permitted to absorb the mind, and the gospel 
deliverance of the soul from sin has been 
crowded out. The mote that plays in the 
sun-beam, may be held so close to the eye 



59 

as to shut out all the world beside. It is 
painfully evident that from the eyes of many, 
the last 20 years, abolitionism has utterly 
shut out every thing else. It is with no sur- 
prise therefore, that the statistics of our 
church are found to show a wide difference 
in the number of conversions, between differ- 
ent sections of our jurisdiction — those in 
which this agitation has been rife, and those 
where it has been ignored. Nor is it with 
surprise that we .hear leading men, on this 
floor, refer that difference to this very cause. 
Again. It has aimed a heavy blow at the 
very foundations of our faith in the Bible as 
a Divine Revelation. The proper proof of 
a Divine Revelation is that which none but 
God could give professedly in attestation 
of such origin. The great proof of Reve- 
lation is miracles. " The works that I do," 
said Christ, and which no other man ever did 
— or mere man could do — "these bear wit- 
ness of me." They did prove His divine 
mission ! And when Revelation is thus 
'proven^ all we have to do, is to square our- 
selves by what it teaches. But abolitionism 
must consult our instincts, form our own 
notions of what ought to be in the Bible, and 
then square all its language, however direct 
and palpable in itself, by these previous cri- 
teria of our own divining ; " for illustration, 
slavery is, (say they,) contrary to our natu- 



60 

ral sense of wliat is rigliL Slavery cannot 
therefore be in the Bible — slavery therefore 
is not in the Bible. See the p-actical re- 
sult. If the Bible recognised slavery, I 
■would at once hum it !" Now sir, it is an in- 
structive commentary, on all this process of 
reasoning, worthy of our consideration.— Mul- 
titudes of those who first and at successive 
periods of this agitation, fell into this vicious 
reasoning, have actually reached the darkest 
infidelity. Finding, to their common sense, 
the Bible did recognise slaveholding as con- 
sistent with piety, they have indeed ignored 
its claims to divinity ; and rather than sur- 
render a favorite dogma and sacrifice their 
pride to their duty, have plunged into the dark 
abyss ; and become the boldest blasphemers 
of God and his word. The rock on which 
they split, is that on which others may split. 
If the divine authority of the Bible has no 
better foundation than the conceits of the hu- 
man mind — the instinctive feelings of our 
nature, as now broken and disordered by sin, 
then indeed does the superstructure rest on 
sayid. 

Moderator, brethren ! — I have done. I 
have given you "myj^opinion," — the opinion 
indeed of one of your humblest associates, 
yet worthy of respect if sustained by the law 
and the testimony. I respectfully invoke for 
it a candid examination. Permit me sir, in 



61 

fraternal respect to close with the appropria- 
tion of an apostle's admonitory language, 
used on a different occasion. — "Sirs, ye 
ought to have listened to your Southern 
brethren, and not have loosed the ship of the 
church from the anchorage in the constitu- 
tion, and to have suffered this harm. For 
twenty yearS; we have been tossed about on 
this agitated sea, while no sun or stars of 
light appeared. And now you have brought 
the ship into a place where two seas meet- 
when, though no man may lose his ecclesias- 
tical life, there is great danger of the loss 
of the ship. Beware of further agitation, 
lest by the violence of the waves, the ves- 
sel be broken, and we all find ourselves, some 
on planks, some on Irohen pieces of the ves- 
sel, trying to make our way to the shore. " 



LB.J'_ '05 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




01 1 932 689 8 



/^^ 

^mM 



